Created byFuzzy Cloud

High Court of Gujarat

RAJKUMAR J. PATHAKversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

Disposal
29-COMPROMISE @ ADM.STAGE

Holding

The settlement between the parties disposes of the leave‑to‑appeal, the main appeal and the stay application, and the trial court’s observations are quashed.

Summary

The applicant sought leave to appeal under Section 419(4) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita against a trial‑court order acquitting the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While the appeal was pending, the parties entered into a written consensus settlement dated 19 April 2026, wherein the complainant withdrew all allegations and agreed not to pursue further proceedings. The High Court accepted the settlement and disposed of the leave‑to‑appeal application, the main criminal appeal and the stay application. It also quashed the operative observations of the trial court. The order thereby terminated the pending criminal proceedings in view of the settlement.

Issues considered

  • Whether a pending leave‑to‑appeal application can be dismissed on account of a settlement between the parties
  • Whether the observations of the trial court can be set aside after the parties have reached a consensus settlement
  • Effect of a consensus agreement on the continuance of a criminal appeal under Section 419(4) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

Legislation cited

Subjects

settlementcriminal appealacquittalSection 138 NI Actleave to appealconsensus agreementquashstay applicationBhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

Judgment

      R/CR.MA/23366/2024                                   ORDER DATED: 29/06/2026




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 23366
                           of 2024
                              In
                 R/CRIMINAL APPEAL/1730/2025
                             With
              R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1730 of 2025
                             With
     CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
                              In
              R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1730 of 2025

==========================================================
                           RAJKUMAR J. PATHAK & ORS.
                                     Versus
                            STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
VISHAL K ANANDJIWALA(7798) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS JIRGA JHAVERI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                                Date : 29/06/2026

                                    ORAL ORDER


1.       The present application is filed by the applicant seeking
leave to appeal under Section 419(4) of the Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against judgment and order dated
4.10.2024 passed by the learned 5 th Additional Sessions Judge,
Panchamahal, at Godhra (hereinafter be referred to as the
“Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No.03 of 2024 whereby the
learned trial Court had acquitted the respondent -                        accused
for     the     offence     under    Section        138   of   the    Negotiable


                                      Page 1 of 4
     R/CR.MA/23366/2024                             ORDER DATED: 29/06/2026




Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NI Act’
for short).

2. At the outset, it is submitted that during the pendency of
the present appeal, the parties have amicably settled the
dispute outside the Court and have entered into a consensus
agreement. The said agreement is in the vernacular language
and has been duly executed and signed by both parties on
19.04.2026.

3.      The copy of the consensus agreement dated 19.04.2026
is taken on record.

4. The English translation of the said consensus agreement
reads as under:

        “This Settlement Deed is executed today, on the date 19/04/2026,
        voluntarily, with clear understanding, and without any pressure,
        enticement, or illusion between the parties mentioned below.

        Party No. 1:-

        Mr.Pravinkumar Dilipkumar Patel, Age: 39 years,
        Occupation: Business, Resident of: Brahman Faliyu, Sureli, Taluka:
        Kalol, District: Panchmahal.

        Party No. 2:-

        Mr. Ashutosh Rajkumar Pathak
        (son of the deceased Jagdishchandra Pathak), Age: 46 years,
        Occupation: Service, Resident of: D-131/132, Akshardham Society,
        behind Swaminarayan Temple, Diwalipura, Vadodara.

        Preamble:-

        1.     Previously, there was a financial transaction between the
        deceased Rajkumar Jagdishchandra Pathak and the first party, and
        in that context, cases, suits, and other proceedings under Section
        138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had taken place.

        2.   During the lifetime and after the demise of the deceased
        Rajkumar Jagdishchandra Pathak, various allegations, applications,


                                 Page 2 of 4
R/CR.MA/23366/2024                                    ORDER DATED: 29/06/2026




   and representations were made by the first party against the
   second party.

   3.          Now, following discussions, clarifications, and
   understanding facilitated through the mediation of friends,
   advocates, and neutral persons, a complete and final settlement
   has been reached between both the parties.

                             Terms and Conditions:-

   1.            The first party explicitly declares that whatever
   allegations, complaints, applications, or representations he has
   made so far before any court, judicial, quasi-judicial authority,
   police station, or any other competent authority against the second
   party and the deceased Rajkumar Pathak, he withdraws all of them
   unconditionally, completely, and with a clear understanding.

   2.            The first party acknowledges that in the financial
   transaction that took place between the deceased Rajkumar Pathak
   and the first party, the second party Mr.Ashutosh Rajkumar Pathak
   was not directly or indirectly involved in any way.

   3.          The first party acknowledges that the allegations
   made earlier were based on misunderstanding and assumptions,
   and now he completely, voluntarily, and without any pressure
   withdraws all those allegations.

   4.           The first party gives assurance, trust, guarantee, and
   confidence to the second party that in the future, with reference to
   the above transaction, he will not file any new complaint, case,
   application, or representation of any kind, and will voluntarily,
   without any pressure, withdraw all the representations that have
   been made.

   5.           There was no financial transaction between both the
   present parties, and whatever allegations were made against
   Ashutosh Pathak regarding the transaction involving the deceased
   Rajkumar Pathak, Pravinkumar Patel withdraws all of them without
   any hesitation.

   6.           Both parties agree that this settlement deed will be
   used wherever necessary and produced before the concerned court
   or authority to bring an end to all pending or prospective
   proceedings, and it is to be produced to record an amicable
   settlement for the withdrawal of the allegations made.

   7.           After this settlement, both parties shall not initiate
   any kind of allegations, counter-allegations, defamation, civil, or
   criminal proceedings against each other, directly or indirectly.

   8.                Based on this settlement deed, whatever direct and



                                 Page 3 of 4
      R/CR.MA/23366/2024                                                                 ORDER DATED: 29/06/2026




           indirect disputes and allegations against each other exist between
           the parties and between Pravinkumar Patel and Rajkumar Pathak,
           and whatever litigation there is, shall be amicably settled and
           brought to an end.

           9.          Based on this settlement deed document, it is clarified
           that no proceedings of any kind will be initiated by the parties
           themselves or through other persons.

           Final Condition:-

           This settlement deed shall remain final, binding, and legally
           enforceable for both parties.

                         We, both the parties, have executed the above deed
           having read, understood, and considered it, in a sober condition,
           voluntarily, and without any kind of coercion or pressure, which is
           and shall remain accepted, approved, and binding upon both of us
           parties as well as the heirs and successors of both of us parties.


           Place :
           Date : 19/04/2026.”


5. In view of the aforesaid settlement arrived at between the
parties, the present Application for Leave to Appeal, the main
Criminal Appeal, as well as the Criminal Miscellaneous
Application for Stay, stand disposed of in terms of the
consensus agreement. However, the observations made by the
Trial Court in the operative part of paragraph 6 of the order
dated 04.10.2024 are hereby quashed and set aside.



                                                                         (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SURESH SOLANKI

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: SURESHKUMAR MOTIBHAI SOLANKI(HC00208), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 01/07/2026 13:21:54




                                                        Page 4 of 4


Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "settlement"Sign in to search

For a digitally signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's own website. Only the court can issue one.